There seems to be one fatal flaw in the consensus opinion that more driver
education should be required. That is the assumption that our government
would adopt a rational and reasonable approach to it. Unfortunately, I fear
that this would not be the case.
Witness the Texas example:
In Texas no one under the age of eighteen (with a very few exceptions) can
get a drivers license without completing a state - approved driver's
education course. This course requires approx. 20 hours of classroom
instruction and 14 hours of driving time. The driving time is divided equally
between observation and driving. The driving school administers the driving
test upon completion of the course and the student takes his/her passing
certificate to the DMV and gets a driver's license. (I would advise you not
to drive in the vicinity of the local DMV office.)
BTW, the class generally costs about $300.
Now, since the class is required and because insurance for teenagers is so
expensive, many students obtain a driver's license with no other driving
experience than that obtained from the course. That is, parents have abdicated
their responsibility to teach their kids to drive because "that's what the
Driver's Ed. course does."
The driving schools, due to competition pressures, virtually NEVER fail a
student. (I know this because my wife is a certified instructor.) The result,
as you can imagine is some of the worst young drivers I have ever seen.
Contrast this with the old days (I grew up in Alabama.) A kid took a written
test at 15 and, upon passing received a learner's permit. Then he/she would
beg/cajole/nag the parents to let them drive whenever they got in the car. By
the time a kid was 16 they had substantial experience driving as well as tips
and suggestions from the persons most likely to be concerned about their
welfare.
It wasn't perfect (there are plenty of lousy drivers in Alabama) but it was
better
than what I see administered by the government in Texas.
Yours for better driving,
Jim Snyder
|